Debate: Prevention of psychosis in adolescents - does CAMHS have a role?

Commentary: Response - Building on existing knowledge and redefining rather than abandoning the well-established 'clinical high risk for psychosis' prevention paradigm: Commentary on Tiffin and Kelleher "Time to abandon the 'clinical high risk state for psychosis" (CHR-P) concept in adolescence?"

We appreciate the commentary by Tiffin and Kelleher on our systematic review and meta-analysis. The CHR-P paradigm remains one of the most established preventive approaches in mental health. While concerns have been raised regarding the clinical utility of the CHR-P paradigm, its implementation in specialized services worldwide supports its relevance. These services provide evidence-based interventions, reducing unnecessary antipsychotic use and guiding treatment strategies. Tiffin and Kelleher's critique largely focuses on transition rates and age cutoffs. While we argue that transition rates in adolescents at CHR-P are significant, other outcomes need to be considered. Among others, negative symptoms are clinically significant in adolescents at CHR-P, impairing functioning and long-term outcomes. We think we should refine and improve the CHR-P paradigm rather than simply abandoning it. With advancements in precision medicine, we can improve risk stratification and tailor interventions to better serve individuals at risk. We can also expand the paradigm, so it supports other help-seeking adolescents at risk requiring transdiagnostic, developmentally sensitive interventions to prevent psychosis.

Debate: CAMHS will be at the forefront of the next generation of psychosis risk models, but further integration with early intervention psychosis services is needed to realise this potential: Re Debate: Prevention of psychosis in adolescents - does CAMHS have a role?

The detection of psychosis and its prodrome have unique considerations in a child and adolescent population. Young people attending CAMHS are already a high-risk group, which confers significant limitations in applying the current clinical high-risk (CHR) model. This has catalysed calls for a transdiagnostic approach to psychosis risk prediction, but without a clear pathway forward. We contribute to the debate opened by Salazar de Pablo and Arango (2023, Child and Adolescent Mental Health) on the role of CAMHS in this initiative. CAMHS have a key role in developing comprehensive longitudinal datasets to inform risk models. Closer integration with early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services will be needed to realise this potential. This integration is also required to reliably detect prodromes and emerging psychosis in young people. Where there is robust evidence to support prevention initiatives, we should proceed with their implementation, even in the absence of enhanced risk models.

Identification of distinct clinical profiles and trajectories in individuals at high risk of developing psychosis: A latent profile analysis of the north American prodrome longitudinal study consortium-3 dataset

AIM

People at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis are a heterogeneous population in regard to clinical presentation and outcome. It is unclear, however, if their baseline clinical characteristics can be used to construct orthogonal subgroups that differ in their clinical trajectory to provide early identification of individuals in need of tailored interventions.

METHODS

We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to determine the number of distinct clinical profiles within the CHR population using the NAPLS-3 dataset, focusing on the clinical features incorporated in the NAPLS psychosis risk calculator (including age, unusual thought content and suspiciousness, processing speed, verbal learning and memory function, social functioning decline, life events, childhood trauma, and family history of psychosis). We then conducted a between-profile comparisons of clinical trajectories based on psychotic and depressive symptoms as well as substance use disorder (SUD) related features over time.

RESULTS

Two distinct profiles emerged. One profile, comprising approximately 25% of the sample, was significantly older, displayed better cognitive performance, experienced more types of traumatic and undesirable life events, exhibited a greater decline in functioning in the past year, and was more likely to have relatives with psychosis. This group showed worse positive symptoms and SUD-related features over time, although groups did not differ in the proportion of individuals who developed psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

LPA results suggest CHRs can be segregated into two profiles with different clinical trajectories. Characterizing individuals within these clinical profiles may help understand the divergent outcomes of this population and ultimately facilitate the development of specialized interventions.

Debate: The prevention of psychosis in child and adolescent mental health services

Psychopathological conditions in adolescence and young adulthood often result from an altered neurodevelopment already phenotypically expressed in childhood. Child and adolescent mental health services are ideally placed to intercept in the developmental trajectories of younger adolescents and contribute to the early detection of a risk for psychosis, as proposed by Salazar de Pablo and Arango (2023, Child and Adolescent Mental Health), opening a debate to which we contribute. The early detection of a specific risk for psychosis and of a broader risk for severe mental illness requires an understanding of the clinical staging of psychosis, neurodevelopmental antecedents of severe mental illness and of heterotypic trajectories between childhood phenotypes and adult disorders.

Debate: Child and adolescent mental health services: time to take the lead in prevention of psychosis in youth

Children and adolescents are at risk of developing mental disorders that have lifelong consequences. This debate piece argues that youth meeting the criteria for clinical high risk for psychosis cannot be assessed and treated with the same tools as adults, given that they often present with different patterns and timecourse of symptoms, age-specific comorbidities and follow different pathways to care. It looks at the key role that Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and other professionals can play by using an age-specific approach to detecting and preventing psychosis.

Debate: Better use of existing services, not more new pathways, is required for psychosis prevention in young people - Commentary on Salazar de Pablo and Arango: 'Prevention of psychosis in adolescents: does CAMHS have a role?'

BACKGROUND

There has been much academic interest in 'the clinical high-risk state for psychosis' (CHR-P) concept. Whilst early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services have offered input to individuals meeting the CHR-P criteria the involvement of CAMHS clinicians in supporting young people with ideational and perceptual disturbance has been more inconsistent and uncertain.

METHOD

We bring together our relevant lived experience, empirical evidence and clinical and research expertise to write this commentary.

RESULTS

We assert that the CHR-P paradigm needs to be revised. This should reflect the low transition rates to psychosis and the prevalent general, impairing psychopathology in individuals meeting these criteria. Nevertheless, it is clear that both CAMHS and EIP services have potential roles in meeting the needs of young people affected by distressing ideational and perceptual disturbance.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that new care pathways and services are not required for young people affected by distressing psychosis-like experiences. Rather more effective joint working between CAMHS, EIP, crisis services and other agencies could meet the needs of these young people more comprehensively.